Is there any automatic documentation maker for lisp? Preferably one that produces simple documentation that can be viewed with simple web browsers, like html. A plus point is extensibility; it being able to recognize some s-expressions and add documentation based on that.

Maybe more generally, a documentation maker for files with trees like that of lisp in it. For which you can then recognize macros for which you want documentation.(And some default ones, like defun, defgeneric, defstruct, defpackage.) And something for per-file documentation.

Edit: that does not sound too hard, i might make it myself if it doesn't exist.

I hit a problem, somewhat like this guy.. At least one of the downloads for dependencies 404-ed now trying to document, also had to skip a tonne of gpg checks. All in all it says "METABANG.UTILITIES:DIRECTORY-NAME-P is undefined.".. Edit: ok, i decided just define it to return T, now it says it doesn't know a variable IT.

And how do i get documentation-template to actually list anything? I assume you know that with auto-documentation, that it will list me all the functions with their arguments, doc-strings. Stuff like (optionally) links to the actual files,(Edit: it can't know that one from the package, probably) how the functions relate(or maybe even diagrams of that) and all are great plusses. (But i will settle for a lot less for the moment.)

Edit: Ok found out how to get the latter to document.. i didn't export the symbols. (Being sloppy with lang-lisps packages..) documentation-template seems good now. (Does show that it is a quick hack, though. Not much control.)

I hit a problem, somewhat like this guy.. At least one of the downloads for dependencies 404-ed now trying to document, also had to skip a tonne of gpg checks. All in all it says "METABANG.UTILITIES:DIRECTORY-NAME-P is undefined.".. Edit: ok, i decided just define it to return T, now it says it doesn't know a variable IT.

That was an entertaining link, thanks for posting I am bemused that Common Lisp is so good at some things, and yet so utterly crap at others. However that being said, most CL projects have a single developer. There are very few projects have more than two active developers. So testing a package in more than a single configuration is just not very feasible.

It might be better to 'ship' libraries with all the dependencies packaged in then making it harder to use by having to chase broken dependencies down, imo. Of course, you have to check once in a while whether you can update the libraries you use to the newest versions of them..

Maybe implementations should also ship some more libraries along with them, memory is cheap, and most of these libraries are rather small. tinaa tarball is 84 KB, i mean, websites are larger then that. Most people don't like chasing around libraries.

Jasper wrote:It might be better to 'ship' libraries with all the dependencies packaged in then making it harder to use by having to chase broken dependencies down, imo. Of course, you have to check once in a while whether you can update the libraries you use to the newest versions of them..

Maybe implementations should also ship some more libraries along with them, memory is cheap, and most of these libraries are rather small. tinaa tarball is 84 KB, i mean, websites are larger then that. Most people don't like chasing around libraries.

I guess that using a propert package system (like gentoo's portage or debian's apt) is a better approach. On gentoo, I did not have problems with installing lisp libraries.